20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

When a treating source’s opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, the ALJ must determine its weight rather than give it controlling weight automatically.

Boulanger v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-30(d)(2)

Because Dr. Kim’s findings and plaintiffs own medical records are inconsistent with Dr. Fucci’s RFC determination, the ALJ was required to determine the appropriate amount of weight to afford to Dr. Fucci’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Rabbers v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2009-10-05(d)(2)

An ALJ must give the treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Scott v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-30(d)(2)

The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in not giving controlling weight to Dr. Wright’s opinion. His opinion is not supported by objective medical evidence and is inconsistent with other evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives greater weight to treating source opinions supported by acceptable clinical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Jackson v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-23(d)(2)

Treating source opinions are entitled to greater weight when they are supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with “other substantial evidence” in the record. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the opinions of Dr. Jindra and Dr. Dealy are not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Johnny Parks v. Social Security Administration · filed 2011-03-15(d)(2)

The ALJ must afford a treating source opinion controlling weight if the treating source opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Because the ALJ did not reject the opinions of Parks’s treating physicians, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating source’s opinion when substantial evidence in the record contradicts it.

Francis v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2011-03-16(d)(2)

The agency’s treating-source rule permits an ALJ to reject a treating source’s opinion if substantial evidence in the record contradicts it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; the ALJ must explain the weight assigned.

Duquette v. SSA · filed 2011-07-28(d)(2)

A treatment provider’s opinions will be given controlling weight if the “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Therefore, the ALJ properly decided not to give controlling weight to D r . Ostroski’s opinions to the extent those opinions limited Duquette’s RFC beyond the scope of light work with certain other restrictions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

McAulay v. SSA · filed 2012-03-16(d)(2)

Most importantly, the ALJ did not adequately explain his decision to give the medical opinions of D r . Kevin McGuire less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2013-07-05(c)(2)

These regulations instruct that if a treating source’s opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it will be given “controlling weight.” ... For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the ALJ’s approach to these opinions did not constitute reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Treating source opinions receive greater weight when supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Seney v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-05(d)(2)

Treating source opinions are entitled to greater weight when they are supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with “other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Saldin v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-04(c)(2)

The ALJ failed to consider the requisite factors and provide good reason for determining the weight to give the treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Melissa Jean Hebert, Claimant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2014-08-06(c)(2)

Importantly, however, there is no per se rule requiring the ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source; to be entitled to such weight, a treating source’s opinions must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [cannot be] inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether a treating source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Vacanti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)(4)

In weighing a treating source opinion, the ALJ may consider its consistency with the record as a whole, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), and its supportability with the source’s own clinical findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-24(c)(2)

The ALJ did not commit any legal error here where he evaluated the evidence in the record and determined Dr. Shalkham’s opinions were not supported by the record and not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinions may receive partial weight when differences between the opinions and internal inconsistencies give the ALJ adequate reason to discount them.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

The Court finds that the differences between the August 2017 and the March 2016 opinions—as well internal inconsistencies in the August 2017 opinion—provided the ALJ with adequate reason to afford Dr. Abrams’ opinion only partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) calls for greater weight for examining sources but does not require controlling weight for every treating source opinion.

Osborne v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)

While the ALJ, in general, is required to give more weight to opinion evidence from examining versus nonexamining medical sources, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s medical opinion receives controlling weight only when medical findings support it and it is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Rideout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight only where it is supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent ... with other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ’s discussion illustrates that the treatment records do not support the treater’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion unless it conflicts with other substantial evidence; conflicting non-treating opinions alone do not justify discounting it.

Braun v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-17(c)(2)

Turning to the reasons actually advanced by the ALJ, the mere fact that a treating source opinion is contradicted by opinions from non-treating or non-examining sources is not, by itself, a valid basis for discounting the views of the treating source. Such opinions may be used only if they themselves are supported by the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, with those reasons tied to the regulatory factors.

Hidalgo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-11(c)(2)

“Under the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating [source’s] opinion.” Id. (internal quotation and citations omitted); Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (effective March 27, 2017). The reasons must be “tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations” and must be “sufficiently specific.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when its findings are consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Martinez v. Saul · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)

Thus, Dr. Muyskens’ medical opinion receives controlling weight as long as the findings are not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider whether an opinion signed by a treating psychiatrist warrants controlling weight, even when a therapist also signs it.

Tompulis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-10(c)(2)

The ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence when based on the mistaken belief the opinions were only signed by Ms. Ruebensam, who was not an acceptable medical source. ... Had the ALJ recognized that the opinions were offered by both Dr. Parks and Ms. Ruebensam, she may have given those opinions controlling weight (an analysis she missed given her mistake).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by accepted medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

DiBernardo v. Chater · filed 1997-10-06(d)(2)

In this case, the ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to Dr. Khachadurian’s opinion that there is clinical and radiographic evidence of disc herniations with positive left sciatica, and that Dibernardo is totally disabled. Dr. Khachadurian had examined Dibernardo only once at the time he formed that opinion and that opinion was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and Dr. Khachadurian’s prescribed course of treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Leverett v. Saul · filed 2020-04-07(d)(2)

The treating physician rule states that "the opinion of a claimant's treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given 'controlling weight' so long as it 'is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.'" Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... In the present matter, in declining to fully accept Dr. Nevares' opinions, the ALJ appropriately pointed out that Dr. Nevares had only examined Plaintiff one time. ... Here, contrary to Plaintiff's contentions, the ALJ fully explained why Dr. Nevares' opinion was not afforded significant weight and explained why it was not entirely consistent with other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Carrico v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-07(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The undersigned finds no error with ALJ Gates’ consideration and weighing of the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. ALJ Gates properly declined to afford these opinions controlling weight and articulated his reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount a treating-source opinion that is contradicted or internally inconsistent if the ALJ gives good reasons and weighs the listed treatment, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Campagna v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-19(c)(2)-(6)

Under the rules in effect when plaintiff filed his claims, a treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. ... The ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Demorest treated plaintiff monthly over a period of at least three years but found these extreme limitations unsupported by the objective evidence, including the doctor’s own treatment notes. R. 496-97.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)’s good-reasons requirement is satisfied when an ALJ explains why a treating physician’s opinion carries less weight than the other evidence.

Stiltner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-08-07(d)(2)

The ALJ did not summarily dismiss Dr. Bansal’s opinion. Rather, the ALJ detailed at substantial length why he found it lacking compared with the other evidence. This is all that we require when reviewing an administrative law judge’s decision for compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)’s reasons-giving requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion; failure to do so may require remand.

Snider v. Saul · filed 2020-02-25(c)(2)

Because the ALJ failed to give good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for giving little weight to Dr. Damba’s opinions, and because that failure may have affected the outcome of the case, remand for further consideration is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give good reasons for assigning little weight to a treating source’s opinion, including addressing material evidence supporting it.

Luginbuhl v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

Based on this record, the Court concludes that the ALJ has not given good reasons for assigning Dr. Manges’ opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and otherwise to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Morrow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-14(c)

A treater’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013). Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh relevant supporting and contradicting factors.

BENSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-14(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician need not be viewed uncritically, however. Rather, only when an ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” must he give that opinion controlling weight. ... Here, Benson contends that the ALJ erred in failing to follow the standard above with respect to the opinions rendered by Dr. Gerhart, his primary care physician, and Dr. Bryson, his rheumatologist. I find that the ALJ weighed the opinions in consideration with all of the evidence of record and that there is no basis for remand. For instance, the ALJ explained that he discounted Gerhart’s and Bryson’s opinions because they were inconsistent with their own treating notes; inconsistent with Benson’s activities of daily living; not supported by the functional capacity evaluation; and inconsistent with his generally normal examinations and conservative treatment. (R. 24) These are valid and acceptable reasons for discounting opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). Furthermore, I find that there is substantial evidence of record to support the ALJ’s weighing of Gerhart’s and Bryson’s opinions in this regard. Consequently, I find no basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Scharmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-14

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight and, if it does not, to weigh the opinion using the regulatory factors and give sufficiently specific good reasons for the assigned weight.

Peterson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Second, if the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the record or not supported by medical evidence, the opinion does not merit controlling weight but is still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the following six factors: ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Not every factor is applicable in every case, nor should all six factors be seen as absolutely necessary. What is necessary, however, is that the ALJ give good reasons—reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers”—for the weight that he ultimately assigns to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using factors including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2), (c)

A treater’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s). ... Having failed to specifically analyze and provide reasons as to why Dr. Pan’s treating opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ committed reversible error by depriving “the Court of the opportunity to meaningfully review whether [the ALJ] undertook the ‘two-step inquiry’ required when analyzing treating source opinions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to consider the specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-22(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration and weighing of Dr. Barker’s opinion. The ALJ articulated the weight he afforded the opinion and properly declined to afford it controlling weight—specifically, because the opinion was unsupported by and inconsistent with other objective medical evidence in the record. ... The undersigned therefore concludes that the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule or otherwise err in his consideration and weighing of Dr. Barker’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Pino v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-28(c)(2)

Moreover, the correct standard for determining whether Dr. Sanchez’s opinions were entitled to controlling weight is not whether his opinions were “inconsistent” with the substantial evidence of record but rather whether they were “not inconsistent.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider the relevant treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors if controlling weight is denied.

Riccinto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-29(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). This is known as the “treating physician rule.” If an ALJ decides not to give the treating source’s records controlling weight, then he must explicitly consider four factors: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a presumption of weight only to treating-source opinions, not opinions from consultative examiners.

Bilelo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30(c)(2)

Furthermore, neither Dr. Gindes nor Dr. Helprin were treating sources; and, thus, their opinions were not entitled to a presumption of weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing such a presumption only in the context of treating source opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

ZWIEBEL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-30(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to consider the relevant treatment and evidentiary factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-01(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, [the ALJ] must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))). At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source opinion for controlling weight to consider both whether it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and whether it is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Dunaway, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-13(c)(2)

While consistency with substantial evidence in the record is one of the controlling weight factors, the ALJ does not appear to evaluate the other controlling weight factor, i.e., whether Dr. Yee’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.…” ... Such a failure is reversible error because it “deprives the Court of the opportunity to meaningfully review … the ‘two-step inquiry’ required when analyzing treating source opinions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

LaPorta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-12(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by objective evidence and is not inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)(2)

The ALJ must give the opinions of a treating physician controlling weight if the opinions are supported by objective evidence and are not inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally entitles a treating physician’s opinion to controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not contradicted by other substantial evidence.

Onur v. Saul · filed 2020-05-20(c)

Although “a treating physician’s opinion is usually entitled to controlling weight, it must be ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and not contradicted by other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Santos-Pagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2)

Under the applicable regulations and case law, a treating source’s opinion must be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating source's medical opinion more weight, and controlling weight is appropriate only when the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Watson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2)

Generally, however, the opinions of a treating source will be given more weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). To receive controlling weight a treating physician’s opinion must be “. . . well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques . . .” and must not be “. . . inconsistent with the other substantial evidence . . .” in the record. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001). Indeed, the ALJ is not required to accept treating source opinions uncritically and may decline to assign significant weight to such an opinion when assigning such weight would conflict with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to non-treating opinions, but does not give special significance to opinions on the ultimate issue of disability.

Hartl v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2), (d)(3)

The opinions of treating sources are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... In Social Security disability law, however, ALJs are precluded from assigning special significance to statements by medical providers that touch on the ultimate issue of a claimant’s disability under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3); McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2011) (treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not binding on the ALJ).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

PUERTO v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-27(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but does not require deference when those conditions are absent.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(c)(2)

The "treating physician rule" “requires the ALJ to. give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician regarding ‘the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) . . . [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." Piatt v. Colvin, 80 F.Supp.3d 480, 491 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Where an opinion is unsupported—or where it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence—-the ALJ is not required to afford deference to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Malone v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *1 (July 2, 1996). ... For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to Drs. Silverman and Nys’ opinions regarding plaintiff’s functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Dines v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

Dr. Bee’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, as it is not inconsistent with other evidence in the record and there is no allegation that it was not “supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source's medical opinion to consider specified factors when assigning weight and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Grant v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-01(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician's medical opinion,4 the ALJ must consider various ... factors ... including: (i) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (iv) the physician's consistency with the record as a whole; and (v) whether the physician is a specialist. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); 416.927(d)(2). ... The court finds that the ALJ did not provide good reasons for assigning “little weight” to Dr. Sherman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it is inconsistent with the physician’s notes and testimony and does not identify specific functional limitations.

Adair v. Saul · filed 2020-06-04(c)(2)

For two reasons, however, the ALJ had good reason to discount it. First, the opinion is inconsistent with the treating physician’s notes, which suggested that Adair’s symptoms were milder, and his testimony in another proceeding that Adair fell into either class I or II. See Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 842–43 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that inconsistencies can justify discounting the opinion of a treating physician). Second, the opinion did not “identif[y] specific functional limitations,” so other evidence in the record was more “instructive” when it came to determining which “activities [Adair] could and could not complete.” Stoner, 818 F.3d at 371.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-05(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, while permitting the ALJ to account for them without explicitly weighing each one.

Rodriguez Jr v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08

“If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... As this review shows, the ALJ’s decision contemplated the regulatory factors and gave sound reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Hudson’s opinion in light of the evidence as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported medical opinion controlling weight.

Hilton v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating provider’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight.

Gordon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Spengler v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Richardson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-16(c)(2)

However, the ALJ’s reasoning for giving controlling weight to Dr. Kronberger’s opinion was neither specific nor legitimate, and the court finds that the ALJ erred by not giving Dr. Wanlass’s opinion controlling weight because it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical findings and consistent with substantial evidence.

Powley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-16(c)(2)

As a treating physician under the SSA rules in place prior to March, 2017, Dr. Cohen’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight because it was consistent with the substantial evidence in the record and it was supported by medically acceptable clinical findings. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors and give a treating source controlling weight only when the opinion is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

MATTIS v. SAUL · filed 2020-06-18(c)(2)

Generally, the Commissioner’s regulations dictate that an ALJ must give medical opinions the weight he deems appropriate based on factors such as whether the physician examined or treated the claimant, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. With respect to treating physicians specifically, the regulations provide that an ALJ shall give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and it is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulatory factors and give good reasons for discounting it.

Sauer v. Saul · filed 2020-06-19(c)

Under the regulation applicable to plaintiff’s claim, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s medical condition “is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and consistent with other record evidence.” Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 774 (7th Cir. 2018). If the ALJ finds that a treating source opinion does not meet the test for controlling weight, she must decide how much value it does have, considering a variety of factors, including the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent; the opinion’s supporting explanation and consistency with other evidence; and any specialty of the physician. Id. at 775; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Ultimately, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting the opinions of a treating physician. Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479, 485 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating source’s opinion controlling weight unless it conflicts with other substantial evidence, and to give specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Terkeurst v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-22(c)(2)

Two related rules govern how an ALJ is required to analyze a treating physician’s opinion. ... The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Closely associated is “the good reasons rule,” which requires an ALJ always to give “good reasons . . . for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.” ... In order to meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-02(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ did not err by failing to provide controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Diego after finding that it was inconsistent with her treatment notes and other medical evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits less weight when it is internally inconsistent or conflicts with the record.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)

The question for this Court comes down to whether the ALJ had “good reasons” to discount Schoenwalder’s opinions on Smith’s functional limitations—specifically, as she focuses upon, the need to frequently elevate her legs. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) (2012). The good reason is this: that limitation isn’t reflected in the record. That is what the ALJ concluded, and this Court finds no error in that respect.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using specified factors.

Hargett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-07-08(a)(2), (c)(2)–(6)

Under the treating physician rule in effect at the time that Hargett filed his claim for disability in 2015, the opinion of a treating source, such as Dr. Lucardie, must be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If the ALJ decides not to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine what weight to give the opinion by balancing a host of factors: the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the degree to which the treating source’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the overall record; the specialization of the treating source; and any other relevant factors. ... Given that Dr. Lucardie was Hargett’s treating physician and signed off on the results of the FCE, an FCE that Hargett obtained upon referral by Dr. Lucardie, we conclude that the ALJ should have considered the FCE as a treating-source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion without expressly discussing every listed factor so long as the ALJ minimally articulates good reasons, after applying the controlling-weight rule.

Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-08(d)(2)

The ALJ must give the opinions of a treating physician controlling weight if the opinions are supported by objective evidence and are not inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008).4 If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion in the same manner as the opinion of a non-treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Bell complains that the ALJ did not address the factors for opinions of non-treating physicians, specifically the longevity of the relationship. The ALJ is not required to mention each listed factor as long as she minimally articulated good reasons for discounting the doctor’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Marrero v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-09(d)(2)

This decision violated the “treating physician” rule, which requires an ALJ to give “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairment “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

CRAWHORN v. SAUL · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)

Because Claimant advanced this claim before March 2017, the applicable law provides that a treating source's opinion2 is entitled to controlling weight if it is: (1) "well-... supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques"; and (2) "not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider "the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." ... The Court agrees with Claimant that the ALJ failed to articulate an appropriate rationale for not granting controlling weight to his treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source's opinion to consider the regulatory factors, including treatment history, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Gonyea v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-10(c)(2)

Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. ... In doing so, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... Furthermore, though the ALJ did not specifically recite the Burgess factors in her opinion, a searching review of the ALJ’s reasoning shows she considered each relevant factor. ... Thus, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision demonstrates adequate consideration of the regulatory factors in weighing and affording some weight to the Kroeger-Viktus opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion and gives the opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with the record.

Apke v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The regulations provide several factors the ALJ should consider in evaluating a treating physician’s opinion: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... We find no error with this reasoning and decision by the ALJ. An opinion is entitled to controlling weight only if it is supported both by medical findings and a consistent record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors such as the treatment relationship, consistency, supportability, and medical specialty when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Harper v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)

Even if there were sound reasons for refusing to give Dr. Obert-Hong’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ still erred by assigning his opinions little weight without considering relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (i.e., length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; opinion’s consistency with other evidence; explanatory support for the opinion; and any specialty of the treating physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the claimant’s record.

De Bolt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-10(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source medical opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Springer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-13(c)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating provider’s opinion to examine the treatment relationship and other listed factors when deciding how much weight to give it.

Mueller v. Saul · filed 2020-07-20(c)(2)

And in discounting the opinions of her treating providers, the ALJ must examine the factors listed in the regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ failed to do so here, ignoring important factors such as the frequency and length of time Dr. Mehta treated Mueller and the fact that Dr. Perera is a gastrointestinal specialist. Because the ALJ did not discuss findings that would lend credibility to the opinions of Mueller’s treating providers, it cannot be said that his conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires a well-supported treating source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires record-supported reasons for discounting it when controlling weight is denied.

Hobbs v. Saul · filed 2020-07-21(c)

“Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), a treating source’s opinion should receive controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... “Accordingly, the ALJ has not supported his reasons for discounting Dr. Hamed’s opinion with substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate Dr. Hamed’s opinion in light of the relevant evidence in the record. If the ALJ decides that his opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he shall give good reasons supported by the record for discounting it.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires controlling weight for a treating source’s medical opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Trujillo v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2020-07-22(c)(2)

Under the regulations governing cases filed before March 27, 2017, the agency must assign controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion that “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires ALJs applying the controlling-weight test to consider whether a treating source's opinion is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Wickham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-23(c)(2)

The controlling weight test requires ALJs to consider whether the treating source’s opinion is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source opinions greatest deference and requires controlling weight when they are well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Cameron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-23(c)(2)

Under the regulations in effect prior to March 27, 2017, the opinions of treaters are entitled to the greatest deference because they “are likely to be . . . most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... A treater’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source opinion greater weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Cerda v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)

The Social Security Regulations afford a treating source opinion more weight than a non-treating opinion if the treating opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Indeed, the opinion of a treating or examining source is in no way “dismissable,” see Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2012), and may be dismissed or discounted only upon an examination of the factors provided in the regulations and “specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it[,]” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 764 (10th Cir. 2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, as was Plaintiff’s, a treating physician’s medical opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is to be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ’s assignment of weight to Dr. Manalo’s opinion runs counter to the regulations, and there is no reason for remand here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess whether a treating source’s opinion is consistent with the other evidence before giving it controlling weight.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(c)

A treating doctor’s opinion does not receive controlling weight just because it is from a treating physician. Instead, the ALJ considers whether the opinion is consistent with the other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

CAMPOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-04(d)(2)

The Third Circuit instructs that, “[w]here a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,’ it will be given ‘controlling weight.’” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Accordingly, because the ALJ failed to address conflicting evidence when finding that the record was “inconsistent” with Dr. Okao’s opinions, her decision to assign little weight to these opinions was not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it need not receive controlling weight and must instead be weighed under the regulation's listed criteria.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(d)(2)

As the Regulations state, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to a treating physician=s evaluation when that evaluation is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 CFR ' 416.927(d)(2); 20 CFR ' 404.1527(d)(2). Instead, when there is contradictory evidence, the treating physician=s opinion is weighed against the contradictory evidence under the criteria listed above. Id. When the opinions are inconsistent with each other, the final decision regarding the weight to be given to the differing opinions lies with the Commissioner. 20 CFR ' 416.927(e)(2). Because Dr. Gibson’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the Regulations do not mandate that the ALJ accord Dr. Gibson’s evaluation controlling weight. Accordingly, Plaintiff=s argument fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's well-supported, non-inconsistent opinion controlling weight and requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Brooks v. Saul · filed 2020-08-11(c)(2)

The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating physicians than other sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). A treating physician's assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Id.; see also Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). ... When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the physician provides support for her findings, and the physician's area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The Commissioner "will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source's opinion." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires good reasons when an ALJ assigns it less weight.

Rathbone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... On balance, the ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for failing to accord Ms. Handy’s opinions controlling weight and therefore “traversed the substance of the treating physician rule.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 98.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions when assessing RFC; a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight, and if controlling weight is denied, the ALJ must comprehensively explain the weight assigned.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-20(a), (a)(2), (c)(2)

The ALJ is required to consider medical opinions in his RFC assessment because they reflect judgments about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments, and explain what the claimant can still do despite those impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a); see also Lowe, 2016 WL 624922, at *5 (“RFC is a medical assessment; therefore, the ALJ is precluded from making his assessment without some expert medical testimony or other medical evidence to support his decision.”) (citations omitted). Generally, the ALJ must defer to an opinion of a claimant’s treating physician when formulating the claimant’s RFC. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal and other citations omitted). The medical opinion of the claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). If the ALJ determines that the opinion of a treating physician is not entitled to controlling weight, she must decide how much weight, if any, to give the opinion and must comprehensively articulate her reasons for the weight assigned to it. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Burdett-Pickering v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-25(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the ALJ to give limited weight to Dr. Clymer’s opinion regarding the plaintiff’s physical limitations prior to May 9, 2014.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence of record.

(SS) Helm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)

“If . . . a treating [physician’s] opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of enumerated factors and good reasons for the weight assigned.

CROWLEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)

Pursuant to regulations in effect as of February 12, 2013, when the plaintiff filed her SSD application, see Record at 2166, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[,]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, it is to be weighed in accordance with enumerated factors. See id. § 404.1527(c).4 An ALJ may give the opinion little weight or reject it, provided that he or she supplies “good reasons” for doing so. See, e.g., id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[The commissioner] will always give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] give[s] a [claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”). The ALJ supplied good reasons in this case for not crediting the plaintiff’s treating sources’ opinions, including that (i) they did not purport to offer an opinion on the plaintiff’s condition on or before her DLI, (ii) the earliest of their opinions was completed more than three years after the DLI, and (iii) certain of their opinions touched on matters reserved to the commissioner. No more was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight or provide good, specific reasons for assigning it less weight.

Reed v. Saul · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)

Controlling weight will be given to a treating source’s medical opinion “on the nature and severity of your impairment(s) [if the opinion] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case.” Id. That section of the regulation concludes by stating that good reasons will always be given for the weight assigned to the treating source medical opinion. ... In the opinion of the Court the ALJ's analysis of Dr. Sievert’s opinion falls short of what is required by the regulations and case law necessitating a remand. On remand, if the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to the decision should explain “with some specificity” why it was rejected or discounted. If the ALJ finds that the doctor’s opinion about the nature and severity of Plaintiff's impairments is not supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques, or if the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ should explain that finding with the specificity required by the regulations and case law. In other words, the ALJ must give good reasons for the finding. Likewise, if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to the doctor’s opinion, the ALJ should be clear about the weight assigned to the opinion and what evidence is being relied upon for that finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(c)(2)

“[A] treating physician’s opinion ‘should be granted controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.’” Despain, 926 F.3d at 1027 (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to Dr. Simison’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated for factors including supportability, consistency, and specialization, and a treating physician’s opinion is controlling only when well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Hurley v. Saul · filed 2020-08-27(c)

Based on the Court’s review of the evidence in the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment is supported by substantial evidence. As Hurley’s treating physician, Dr. Puckett treated her for several years and was aware of her impairments. But the other factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; consistency with the record as a whole; and specialization weigh more heavily against granting Dr. Puckett’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other evidence of record.

Brazier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(2)

These are valid, supported reasons for not granting a treating source “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (a treating source opinion is only granted controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with other evidence of record”.). Moreover, the cited evidence is substantial and provides effective reasoning for the ALJ to assign “little weight” to the opinions of Dr. Brojmohun and Ms. Brown. (Tr. 20).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while the ALJ may weigh it against the record based on support and consistency.

DRAUGHN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-31(d)(2)

To make the RFC assessment, anALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence together with other relevant evidence in the record. Id. §404.1527(b). ... Itis the responsibility of the ALJ, and not the treating or examining physician, to make the final RFC decision. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c), (d) (explaining that an ALJ considers, inter alia, the extent to which a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and supported by relevant evidence). ... Thus, a treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is given controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Fischer v. Saul · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2)

In sum, the ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for assigning the opinion of Dr. Halpin “limited weight” in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. Thus, remand is required. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give to your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an adjudicator to consider the supportability of a medical opinion, so an unsupported treating-source limitation may be given less weight.

Collier v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

Gowda’s workplace-related limitations lack “supportability,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), and this Court will not conclude that the ALJ erred in pointing this flaw out as to that portion of Gowda’s opinions. No error was committed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Valentin v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(c)(2), (c)(4)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Johnson v. Berryhill, 745 F. App’x 247, 250 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016)); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9, at *1–4 (July 2, 1996). An opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight need not be rejected. Instead, the opinion is entitled to deference, and the ALJ must weigh it using several factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the treating physician; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Ramos v. Astrue, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1087 (E.D. Wis. 2009). Moreover, the ALJ must always give “good reasons” to support the weight he ultimately assigns to the treating physician’s opinion. See § 404.1527(c); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and, when assigning less weight, to give good reasons and consider specified factors.

Loeckle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(c)(2)

“[A]n ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record.” Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). When an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned and consider the following factors: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.